LOK ADHIKAR SANGH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition was filed as a Public Interest Litigation as fire safety system was not provided to prevent accidents in cinema halls, factories and high rise buildings. The petitioner sought for several directions including to take action against erring officers, who are responsible for gross violation of rules and regulations and to direct the respondents to create an independent machinery as also for mandatory agency representing various sections of the people to monitor working of the fire safety measures. Initially the Division bench (Coram: R.A. Mehta, Actg. C.J. & N.N. Mathur, J.) issued notice on 1.7.1997, returnable on 21.7.1997. Thereafter, on 4.9.1997, the Court (Coram: R.A. Mehta, Actg. C.J. and N.N. Mathur, J.) considered the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent admitting the fact that there are large number of high-rise buildings within the municipal limits, which are said to be without the required fire safety and fire prevention equipments. This being contrary to the law, prejudicial to the safety of the public at large and considering the fact that violation was on a large scale, the Court passed an order, further pointing out that because the buildings are built and put up by big builders and occupied by well-to-do influential people, actions are not taken or a show is made that actions are taken. The Court, in the aforesaid order dated 4.9.1997, gave an opportunity to the authorities to "disprove that the allegation of the petitioners that they (i.e. the authorities) are in collusion with the builders and occupiers of such buildings", and the matter was adjourned to 22.9.1997. Thereafter, it was brought to the notice of the Court that under the guise of a resolution No. 28.4.1994 for providing water and drainage facilities to hutments, chawls, societies, row houses and other buildings constructed without permission or illegally between 1.5.1976 and 31.3.1994, AMC was granting drainage and water connection to high rise buildings without fire safety measures. The Court (Coram: R.A. Mehta, Actg. C.J. and S.D. Pandit, J.) therefore granted permission on 16.10.1997 to amend the petition, and the petition is accordingly amended (pages No. 31 to 34). It was contended in the draft amendment that the said resolution cannot be used to condone the gross violations by the builders/ occupiers of buildings rules and regulations and of fire safety measures.

(2.) Thereafter, the Court (Coram: K. Sreedharan, C.J. and M.S. Shah, J) in an order dated 24.12.1997 pointedly referred to the order dated 4.9.1997 and we do not repeat the same. The Court also pointed out that it is improper to apply the aforesaid resolution to high rise buildings. The Court directed to take appropriate steps to get fire safety and fire prevention measures, including installation of such equipments in the high rise buildings in accordance with law. Despite the fact that the order is dated 24.12.1997, no action has been taken so as to satisfy the Court that Municipal Commissioner has taken action against the wrong doers who have committed breaches of various provisions. He has not taken action despite the fact that on 18.2.1999, the State Government has forwarded circulars to all Municipal Corporations, Municipalities and Chairmen of various Urban Development Authorities in this behalf. (Copy of the said resolution is produced by Dr. Manjula Subramaniam, Principal Secretary with her affidavit-in-reply). Even thereafter, the State Government issued letter to the Municipal Commissioner as well as Urban Development Authorities to take action against the officers who have acted illegally.

(3.) Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Division Bench (Coram: K.Sreedharan, C.J. and A.R. Dave, J) on 12.2.1998. Reading the order it is clear that the Municipal Corporation issued Public Notice requiring high rise buildings situated within Municipal Corporation limits to have fire safety equipments and devices installed within sixty days, and the said period was to expire on 14.3.1998. Thus, though breach was committed by officers of the Corporation, Public Notice was given and public at large was informed that in every high rise building, there must be fire safety equipment and devices within the time granted. As that was not done, the Court was required to proceed further. Not only that, but the Municipal Commissioner requested the Court in public interest to direct that such systems (fire prevention and protection system for high rise buildings) if not already installed, be installed in the high rise buildings forthwith and the same be made operational and effective. This speaks a lot about the affairs of the Municipal Corporation. The Municipal Commissioner was not able to control his staff or the Municipal Commissioner at the relevant time, was not able to enforce the law. Otherwise he would not have permitted anyone to occupy the buildings unless and until the same is erected in accordance with law and that Building Use Permission is granted. The Division Bench in the aforesaid order dated 12.2.1998 directed the Municipal Commissioner and his team of officers to follow the time schedule fixed in the notices and see that fire safety measures are installed in all the buildings without fail. The Court further directed that "in case any building fails to have these safety measures, all legal steps, contemplated by the various Acts and Rules, should be pressed into service, and effective action should be taken against erring builders / owners".